In case where the person liable for payment fails to notify in writing the person liable for payment of the determination on the transfer margin of assets, which is the same as the amount reported and paid (negative)

Even if there is no amount of tax to be paid newly because the relevant resident is the same as the voluntarily paid tax amount, the tax base and tax amount of capital gains tax determined by the tax authority pursuant to Articles 116 through 120 of the Income Tax Act, Articles 9 and 94 of the same Act, and Articles 146 and 142(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which are notified in writing to the relevant resident pursuant to Article 146 and 142(3) of the same Act, the details of the final decision shall not be deemed to have the effect of imposing capital gains tax unless the relevant resident notifies the taxpayer in writing pursuant to Article 128 of the same Act

Articles 116 and 128 of the Income Tax Act, Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu776 Decided November 10, 1987, 88Nu11476 Decided June 27, 1989, Supreme Court Decision 88Nu11483 Decided October 24, 1989

[Judgment of the court below]

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu1068 delivered on July 8, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for an appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to Article 115 (1) 1 (a) and (3) of the Income Tax Act and Article 56-5 (5) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the tax base and the amount of transfer income tax calculated under Article 17 of the Income Tax Act, based on Article 17 of the same Act, for the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiff did not have any tax base and the amount of transfer income tax calculated under Article 17 of the same Act; (b) the Plaintiff did not have any tax base and the amount of transfer income tax calculated under Article 18 of the same Act; and (c) the amount of transfer income tax calculated under Article 17 of the same Act and the amount of transfer income tax calculated under Article 18 of the same Act; and (d) the amount of transfer income tax calculated under Article 17 of the same Act and the amount of transfer income tax calculated under Article 18 of the same Act; and (e) the Defendant did not voluntarily pay the amount of transfer income tax calculated on the basis of the transfer income tax to the Plaintiff.

In light of the relevant laws and regulations, the above judgment of the court below is just (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu776, Nov. 10, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu11476, Jun. 27, 1989); and it is just an independent opinion that if the tax authority notifies the taxpayer of the details of the final decision and pays taxes as notified to the taxpayer, the taxation disposition should be deemed to have become effective.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)